Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As pollsters start to look at tacticals Marf gives her take

13»

Comments

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Pulpstar said:

    TGOHF said:

    Betfair now make Huppert favourite for Cambridge. Get on the 10/11 whilst one can.

    Muesli credentials to the eyeballs.
    Am changing my name to Bawdeepin Huppert in honour of my betting position.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    Pulpstar said:

    Damn, if I had the cash free I'd so lay David Miliband next PM at 29-1.

    I imagine the percentage of folks who'd want to lay David Miliband is quite small - unless he'd practiced on that banana....
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    edited February 2015
    I like to bring up bets made by other respected punters here that go against the narrative of a thread or so.

    Encourages frank discussion and asks to examine not what we think will happen, but what the correct probabilities are of the future.
  • Quincel said:

    Nigel - thanks for being a sport and agreeing to this bet. As we both have circa 2500 vanilla posts to our name, I'm halppy to take this on trust if you are, but should you wish to confirm things with PtP then that's fine with me also ... let me know what you decide.

    Any other bona fide taker of this bet, please confirm within the next 15 minutes, i.e by 10:30pm when the shutters come down.

    Did you see my post? This is the Lab net Tory wins over/under 25? I'm up for evens with £20 stake. I'm over, you under.
    I think we're on the same side of the bet Quincel unless I've misunderstood you.
  • Fancy an evens money bet on that Nigel?
    I say Labour wins 26 seats or more (net) from the Tories
    You say Labour wins 24 seats or fewer (net) from the Tories.
    Numbers exclude the Speaker's seat (Buckingham)
    Bet void if Labour wins exactly 25 seats (net) from the Tories.
    Loser pays Winner £20 by electronic bank transfer within 7 days of General Election date, ie. by 14 May 2015.
    What say you?
    I'll take the same bet from another established punter on PB.com for the same amount on the same terms.

    Hi Peter, I'm more of a lurker but have been around for years, please put me down for £20 at that bet if you want to. I think either we've bet once before back in '08 or PtP and I did but either way I'm happy to confirm with him if you want.
  • compouter2compouter2 Posts: 2,371

    Evening all, now I wonder what tonights poll will show?

    A snapshot of current voting intention for a random sample of electors, weighted by party id and past vote?
    saddened said:

    Evening all, now I wonder what tonights poll will show?

    According to you it will either show triumphant Tories massively overreacting to a small lead. Or Tories massively overreacting to a small deficit. Neither of which will be true.
    Nail...on ....head.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    Tim_B said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Damn, if I had the cash free I'd so lay David Miliband next PM at 29-1.

    I imagine the percentage of folks who'd want to lay David Miliband is quite small - unless he'd practiced on that banana....
    TGOHF said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TGOHF said:

    Betfair now make Huppert favourite for Cambridge. Get on the 10/11 whilst one can.

    Muesli credentials to the eyeballs.
    Am changing my name to Bawdeepin Huppert in honour of my betting position.
    My pal who works with this sort of stuff thinks he'll hold by 1-2000.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @Sun_Politics: YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by one: CON 33%, LAB 34%, LD 6%, UKIP 15%, GRN 7%
  • @Sun_Politics: YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by one: CON 33%, LAB 34%, LD 6%, UKIP 15%, GRN 7%
  • compouter2compouter2 Posts: 2,371
    edited February 2015
    ......onward marching Basil. Labour by 1%
  • Nigel - thanks for being a sport and agreeing to this bet. As we both have circa 2500 vanilla posts to our name, I'm halppy to take this on trust if you are, but should you wish to confirm things with PtP then that's fine with me also ... let me know what you decide.

    Any other bona fide taker of this bet, please confirm within the next 15 minutes, i.e by 10:30pm when the shutters come down.

    No mate I am happy to take it on trust.

    I didn't realize I had that many posts, I really need to get out more.
    Nigel - I'm glad that's all agreed - I'll copy this exchange of posts, as a document, referenced to today's date - you may wish to do likewise.
    Good luck, sort of!
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,568
    LAB - 34% (+2) CON - 33% (+1) UKIP - 15% (-1) GRN - 7% (-1) LDEM - 6% (-)

    Drift, drift...
  • Ave_itAve_it Posts: 2,411
    33%!

    Con relentlessly up!!

    40% by end Feb!!!
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    ......onward marching Basil. Labour by 1%

    Excellent. Maintain Labour complacency for a bit longer.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    edited February 2015
    CON 33%, LAB 34%, LD 6%, UKIP 15%, GRN 7% says comment on UKPR

    And so it continues... ''I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee''
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,580

    LAB - 34% (+2) CON - 33% (+1) UKIP - 15% (-1) GRN - 7% (-1) LDEM - 6% (-)

    Drift, drift...

    Question - if a former MP gets returned after an absence of one parliament, for the same seat, do they get the same office space as the person they just beat. or their old office (if the two are not already one and the same)?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,705
    Lib Dems in 5th at 6%

    This is utterly horrific for them.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    Tables up yet ?
  • compouter2compouter2 Posts: 2,371
    edited February 2015
    philiph said:

    ......onward marching Basil. Labour by 1%

    Excellent. Maintain Labour complacency for a bit longer.
    Complacency. More like total astonishment. Don't forget January was crossover month, February was pulling away month and March was consistant majority winning lead month as foretold by PB Hodges, Lynton Crosby and Tory HQ alike. I am waiting in awe for the crossover swingback typhoon which will force the UK political landscape to succumb in the matter of weeks.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    CON Gain Twickers !!!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    Pompey north is a bellweather apparently, so if Ed wins it he should become PM. If it stays Blue he may still do...
  • Fancy an evens money bet on that Nigel?
    I say Labour wins 26 seats or more (net) from the Tories
    You say Labour wins 24 seats or fewer (net) from the Tories.
    Numbers exclude the Speaker's seat (Buckingham)
    Bet void if Labour wins exactly 25 seats (net) from the Tories.
    Loser pays Winner £20 by electronic bank transfer within 7 days of General Election date, ie. by 14 May 2015.
    What say you?
    I'll take the same bet from another established punter on PB.com for the same amount on the same terms.

    Hi Peter, I'm more of a lurker but have been around for years, please put me down for £20 at that bet if you want to. I think either we've bet once before back in '08 or PtP and I did but either way I'm happy to confirm with him if you want.
    Philip - If you've bet before with PtP (I don't think it was with me), then that's good enough, assuming you too are happy to take this bet on trust between us, but please confirm.
    As with Nigel, I'll record the details and today's date as a document and no doubt we'll be in touch after the big day.
    Good luck to you also, sort of!
  • Nigel - thanks for being a sport and agreeing to this bet. As we both have circa 2500 vanilla posts to our name, I'm halppy to take this on trust if you are, but should you wish to confirm things with PtP then that's fine with me also ... let me know what you decide.

    Any other bona fide taker of this bet, please confirm within the next 15 minutes, i.e by 10:30pm when the shutters come down.

    No mate I am happy to take it on trust.

    I didn't realize I had that many posts, I really need to get out more.
    Nigel - I'm glad that's all agreed - I'll copy this exchange of posts, as a document, referenced to today's date - you may wish to do likewise.
    Good luck, sort of!
    Peter did you see my post? Do you want me as a second taker on that bet?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,386
    edited February 2015
    YouGov = Zzzzzzzzzzz....

    ICM = Ave It!
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Quincel said:

    What odds will any of the EICIPMers give me for my £20 on Con to win over 299.5 seats?

    6/4? You win £30 if they get 300 seats or more, I win your £20 if they fall short.
    Think I'll hold out for better than that..
    6-4 seems like a fair price - what are you looking for :) ?
    Hopefully someone to bet with their balls over their brain!
    Well, sounds like my kind of bet then. How about 7-4?
    I'll take that. Do we need to do the usual PtP thing?
    I am not certain of the etiquette (I do have a bet on UKIP MPs with PtP), I am happy to follow whatever approach you would prefer.
    I'm happy with your word if you're happy with mine, on same terms as PfP stated, ie loser pays by bank transfer within a week of the result.

    Do we have a bet?
    Deal
    Have just sent you a vanilla message
  • Nigel - thanks for being a sport and agreeing to this bet. As we both have circa 2500 vanilla posts to our name, I'm halppy to take this on trust if you are, but should you wish to confirm things with PtP then that's fine with me also ... let me know what you decide.

    Any other bona fide taker of this bet, please confirm within the next 15 minutes, i.e by 10:30pm when the shutters come down.

    No mate I am happy to take it on trust.

    I didn't realize I had that many posts, I really need to get out more.
    Nigel - I'm glad that's all agreed - I'll copy this exchange of posts, as a document, referenced to today's date - you may wish to do likewise.
    Good luck, sort of!
    I'm an old school bloke who rightly or wrongly does everything on a handshake, so count this as a handshake!
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    philiph said:

    ......onward marching Basil. Labour by 1%

    Excellent. Maintain Labour complacency for a bit longer.
    Complacency. More like total astonishment. Don't forget January was crossover month, February was pulling away month and March was consistant majority winning lead month as foretold by PB Hodges, Lynton Crosby and Tory HQ alike. I am waiting in awe for the crossover swingback typhoon which will force the UK political landscape to succumb in the matter of weeks.
    I expect you to write the same crap day in day out, that's a nigh on certainty.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042

    Quincel said:

    Nigel - thanks for being a sport and agreeing to this bet. As we both have circa 2500 vanilla posts to our name, I'm halppy to take this on trust if you are, but should you wish to confirm things with PtP then that's fine with me also ... let me know what you decide.

    Any other bona fide taker of this bet, please confirm within the next 15 minutes, i.e by 10:30pm when the shutters come down.

    Did you see my post? This is the Lab net Tory wins over/under 25? I'm up for evens with £20 stake. I'm over, you under.
    I think we're on the same side of the bet Quincel unless I've misunderstood you.
    No, the mistake is mine. You are right, we are on the same side of the bet. My apologies.
  • philiph said:

    ......onward marching Basil. Labour by 1%

    Excellent. Maintain Labour complacency for a bit longer.
    Complacency. More like total astonishment. Don't forget January was crossover month, February was pulling away month and March was consistant majority winning lead month as foretold by PB Hodges, Lynton Crosby and Tory HQ alike. I am waiting in awe for the crossover swingback typhoon which will force the UK political landscape to succumb in the matter of weeks.
    A matter of weeks is a long time in politics!
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    philiph said:

    ......onward marching Basil. Labour by 1%

    Excellent. Maintain Labour complacency for a bit longer.
    Complacency. More like total astonishment. Don't forget January was crossover month, February was pulling away month and March was consistant majority winning lead month as foretold by PB Hodges, Lynton Crosby and Tory HQ alike. I am waiting in awe for the crossover swingback typhoon which will force the UK political landscape to succumb in the matter of weeks.
    Yep, everything happens well in advance of the event in these days of rapid communications and algorithms.

  • Ave_itAve_it Posts: 2,411
    GIN1138 said:

    YouGov = Zzzzzzzzzzz....

    ICM = Ave It!

    YouGuv = :):):):):)
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    The UKIP percentage suprisingly holding up as the GE fast approaches. I wonder when it will start to get squeezed. The BBC have a hatchet job lined up for the weekend so along with Channel 4 could be the start of a dirty campaign. Doubt it will do them much harm though as to date it hasn't.
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    And to think people laughed at Farage when he said he was reluctant to reveal too much of the manifesto as other parties will steal it.
  • MP_SE said:

    The UKIP percentage suprisingly holding up as the GE fast approaches. I wonder when it will start to get squeezed. The BBC have a hatchet job lined up for the weekend so along with Channel 4 could be the start of a dirty campaign. Doubt it will do them much harm though as to date it hasn't.

    I can see some soft Kippers heading off back to the Tories, but I will be amazed if the WWC head back to Labour.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    Haven't read the article but if true that might be the best UKIP policy Dave could have nicked
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,705
    edited February 2015
    LDs on Six percent.
    6!
    Not 16% or even 26% just five years ago.
    Six!

    It's astonishing.
    They seem paralysed and we all take it for granted.
  • compouter2compouter2 Posts: 2,371
    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    ......onward marching Basil. Labour by 1%

    Excellent. Maintain Labour complacency for a bit longer.
    Complacency. More like total astonishment. Don't forget January was crossover month, February was pulling away month and March was consistant majority winning lead month as foretold by PB Hodges, Lynton Crosby and Tory HQ alike. I am waiting in awe for the crossover swingback typhoon which will force the UK political landscape to succumb in the matter of weeks.
    Yep, everything happens well in advance of the event in these days of rapid communications and algorithms.

    It reminds me of The Spitting Image piss take of the Two Davids(SDP/LibDEM) during one election campaign "I can feel the surge David, can you feel the surge David?".
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Haven't read the article but if true that might be the best UKIP policy Dave could have nicked
    Just means existing schools can expand.
  • Have we noticed this interesting article by Tony Travers on what local election results indicate for the GE?

    In the past, parties which were on the way to winning a parliamentary majority would generally win 40 per cent or more of the NEVS in years immediately prior to the general election. On no occasion since 1979 has a party defeated the government without a solid NEVS performance averaging about 40 per cent in the four years prior to the election
    ....
    In the four years since 2010, Labour has had an average NEVS of 34 per cent, with the 2013 and 2014 figures being 29 and 31 per cent respectively. The figure below shows the national equivalent vote share lead of opposition parties from 1983 to the present. Elections that resulted in a change of government are coloured red, and elections where the opposition failed to win are coloured black. It is hard to see Labour’s NEVS performance between 2011 and 2014 (coloured gray) as a convincing basis for an election victory. No Opposition since 1979 has managed to win a general election with such a low average NEVS lead in the four years immediately before the election. Moreover, governing parties tend to poll higher in the following general election than they did in the previous years’ local election vote share average.


    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/generalelection/local-elections-party-prospects/
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    Jonathan said:

    LDs on Six percent.
    6!
    Not 16% or even 26% just five years ago.
    Six!

    It's astonishing.
    They seem paralysed and we all take it for granted.

    Yet alot of forecasters have them on 30 seats. It seems completely paradoxical and from a betting PoV is tricky to work out.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    MP_SE said:

    The UKIP percentage suprisingly holding up as the GE fast approaches. I wonder when it will start to get squeezed. The BBC have a hatchet job lined up for the weekend so along with Channel 4 could be the start of a dirty campaign. Doubt it will do them much harm though as to date it hasn't.

    Their polling has been steadily down since October.
  • The headline says it all, major U turn just months before the election.

    Too little too late, we need grammar schools everywhere not just extensions of existing ones, welcome as that is.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,580
    MikeK said:
    Love it. Though I must say the Russell Brand parody did not contain nearly enough purple prose.

    I hope some makes it, though with so little time for production it would have to be on the cheap obviously.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Richard_Nabavi
    How many of those previous elections had as many "credible" nominees standing?
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    edited February 2015

    Have we noticed this interesting article by Tony Travers on what local election results indicate for the GE?

    In the past, parties which were on the way to winning a parliamentary majority would generally win 40 per cent or more of the NEVS in years immediately prior to the general election. On no occasion since 1979 has a party defeated the government without a solid NEVS performance averaging about 40 per cent in the four years prior to the election
    ....

    ...

    There have only been two defeats of a government since 1979, so to election-chartists, anything which fits these two data points can count as a "law".
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    TGOHF said:

    Haven't read the article but if true that might be the best UKIP policy Dave could have nicked
    Just means existing schools can expand.
    The headline is somewhat misleading..
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    edited February 2015

    Have we noticed this interesting article by Tony Travers on what local election results indicate for the GE?

    In the past, parties which were on the way to winning a parliamentary majority would generally win 40 per cent or more of the NEVS in years immediately prior to the general election. On no occasion since 1979 has a party defeated the government without a solid NEVS performance averaging about 40 per cent in the four years prior to the election
    ....
    In the four years since 2010, Labour has had an average NEVS of 34 per cent, with the 2013 and 2014 figures being 29 and 31 per cent respectively. The figure below shows the national equivalent vote share lead of opposition parties from 1983 to the present. Elections that resulted in a change of government are coloured red, and elections where the opposition failed to win are coloured black. It is hard to see Labour’s NEVS performance between 2011 and 2014 (coloured gray) as a convincing basis for an election victory. No Opposition since 1979 has managed to win a general election with such a low average NEVS lead in the four years immediately before the election. Moreover, governing parties tend to poll higher in the following general election than they did in the previous years’ local election vote share average.


    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/generalelection/local-elections-party-prospects/

    Points to between 20 and 40 seat gains for Labour... or perhaps 20-40 seat losses for the Conservatives (Those will be asymetric this time) which doesn't tell us much to my mind.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,705

    Have we noticed this interesting article by Tony Travers on what local election results indicate for the GE?

    In the past, parties which were on the way to winning a parliamentary majority would generally win 40 per cent or more of the NEVS in years immediately prior to the general election. On no occasion since 1979 has a party defeated the government without a solid NEVS performance averaging about 40 per cent in the four years prior to the election
    ....
    In the four years since 2010, Labour has had an average NEVS of 34 per cent, with the 2013 and 2014 figures being 29 and 31 per cent respectively. The figure below shows the national equivalent vote share lead of opposition parties from 1983 to the present. Elections that resulted in a change of government are coloured red, and elections where the opposition failed to win are coloured black. It is hard to see Labour’s NEVS performance between 2011 and 2014 (coloured gray) as a convincing basis for an election victory. No Opposition since 1979 has managed to win a general election with such a low average NEVS lead in the four years immediately before the election. Moreover, governing parties tend to poll higher in the following general election than they did in the previous years’ local election vote share average.


    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/generalelection/local-elections-party-prospects/

    Not sure previous elections are as much use this time. None represent a govt starting out defending a weak minority position, needing to actually win seats, and none had such a collapse in the third party.

  • perdixperdix Posts: 1,806

    The headline says it all, major U turn just months before the election.

    Too little too late, we need grammar schools everywhere not just extensions of existing ones, welcome as that is.
    Why all the fuss? Cameron has backed the expansion of existing grammar schools for some time. This is not about creating new grammar schools. The Daily Wail exaggerating as usual.

  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    Pulpstar said:

    Have we noticed this interesting article by Tony Travers on what local election results indicate for the GE?

    In the past, parties which were on the way to winning a parliamentary majority would generally win 40 per cent or more of the NEVS in years immediately prior to the general election. On no occasion since 1979 has a party defeated the government without a solid NEVS performance averaging about 40 per cent in the four years prior to the election
    ....
    In the four years since 2010, Labour has had an average NEVS of 34 per cent, with the 2013 and 2014 figures being 29 and 31 per cent respectively. The figure below shows the national equivalent vote share lead of opposition parties from 1983 to the present. Elections that resulted in a change of government are coloured red, and elections where the opposition failed to win are coloured black. It is hard to see Labour’s NEVS performance between 2011 and 2014 (coloured gray) as a convincing basis for an election victory. No Opposition since 1979 has managed to win a general election with such a low average NEVS lead in the four years immediately before the election. Moreover, governing parties tend to poll higher in the following general election than they did in the previous years’ local election vote share average.


    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/generalelection/local-elections-party-prospects/

    Points to between 20 and 40 seat gains for Labour... or perhaps 20-40 seat losses for the Conservatives (Those will be asymetric this time) which doesn't tell us much to my mind.
    Or is that seat losses for the coalition?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    edited February 2015
    philiph said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Have we noticed this interesting article by Tony Travers on what local election results indicate for the GE?

    In the past, parties which were on the way to winning a parliamentary majority would generally win 40 per cent or more of the NEVS in years immediately prior to the general election. On no occasion since 1979 has a party defeated the government without a solid NEVS performance averaging about 40 per cent in the four years prior to the election
    ....
    In the four years since 2010, Labour has had an average NEVS of 34 per cent, with the 2013 and 2014 figures being 29 and 31 per cent respectively. The figure below shows the national equivalent vote share lead of opposition parties from 1983 to the present. Elections that resulted in a change of government are coloured red, and elections where the opposition failed to win are coloured black. It is hard to see Labour’s NEVS performance between 2011 and 2014 (coloured gray) as a convincing basis for an election victory. No Opposition since 1979 has managed to win a general election with such a low average NEVS lead in the four years immediately before the election. Moreover, governing parties tend to poll higher in the following general election than they did in the previous years’ local election vote share average.


    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/generalelection/local-elections-party-prospects/

    Points to between 20 and 40 seat gains for Labour... or perhaps 20-40 seat losses for the Conservatives (Those will be asymetric this time) which doesn't tell us much to my mind.
    Or is that seat losses for the coalition?
    Gains for Labour, losses for the coalition maybe ?
    If that's the case its rosy in Nick's Garden.
  • Fancy an evens money bet on that Nigel?
    I say Labour wins 26 seats or more (net) from the Tories
    You say Labour wins 24 seats or fewer (net) from the Tories.
    Numbers exclude the Speaker's seat (Buckingham)
    Bet void if Labour wins exactly 25 seats (net) from the Tories.
    Loser pays Winner £20 by electronic bank transfer within 7 days of General Election date, ie. by 14 May 2015.
    What say you?
    I'll take the same bet from another established punter on PB.com for the same amount on the same terms.

    Hi Peter, I'm more of a lurker but have been around for years, please put me down for £20 at that bet if you want to. I think either we've bet once before back in '08 or PtP and I did but either way I'm happy to confirm with him if you want.
    Philip - If you've bet before with PtP (I don't think it was with me), then that's good enough, assuming you too are happy to take this bet on trust between us, but please confirm.
    As with Nigel, I'll record the details and today's date as a document and no doubt we'll be in touch after the big day.
    Good luck to you also, sort of!
    I'm happy to shake on this too then on trust between us.

    Good luck to you too, ish lol.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    Pulpstar said:

    philiph said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Have we noticed this interesting article by Tony Travers on what local election results indicate for the GE?

    In the past, parties which were on the way to winning a parliamentary majority would generally win 40 per cent or more of the NEVS in years immediately prior to the general election. On no occasion since 1979 has a party defeated the government without a solid NEVS performance averaging about 40 per cent in the four years prior to the election
    ....
    In the four years since 2010, Labour has had an average NEVS of 34 per cent, with the 2013 and 2014 figures being 29 and 31 per cent respectively. The figure below shows the national equivalent vote share lead of opposition parties from 1983 to the present. Elections that resulted in a change of government are coloured red, and elections where the opposition failed to win are coloured black. It is hard to see Labour’s NEVS performance between 2011 and 2014 (coloured gray) as a convincing basis for an election victory. No Opposition since 1979 has managed to win a general election with such a low average NEVS lead in the four years immediately before the election. Moreover, governing parties tend to poll higher in the following general election than they did in the previous years’ local election vote share average.


    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/generalelection/local-elections-party-prospects/

    Points to between 20 and 40 seat gains for Labour... or perhaps 20-40 seat losses for the Conservatives (Those will be asymetric this time) which doesn't tell us much to my mind.
    Or is that seat losses for the coalition?
    Gains for Labour, losses for the coalition ?
    Gains for SNP, losses for coalition, overall?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326

    Re Oborne's quitting the telegraph, he refers to a story I mentioned that HSBC were closing Muslim accounts for spurious reasons because they were outside their risk appetite.

    Charles, CycleFree and Robert assured it was because it was because the potential regulatory fines is why HSBC did it. I said it seemed odd, as other banks were quite happy to provide banking to similar people.

    Peter Oborne's missive confirms to me that something very odd is going on at HSBC.

    (PS this isn't a dig at Charles, CycleFree and Robert, it is more, I got involved it, and I know something odd is going on)

    I really wouldn't rely on what Oborne is saying on this. I can't comment on whether the paper is bowing to its advertisers. But on the issue of closure of accounts HSBC has been doing this for a number of groups, including bookmakers. He is assuming that because Muslims are involved the reason must be sinister. This isn't the case. Banks will close accounts for all sorts of reasons and usually never say why.

    I can well believe that HSBC is going through a torrid time though.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/17/green-party-the-first-hundred-days/

    Probably appeals to some on the loony left, that lot :)
  • Smarmeron said:

    @Richard_Nabavi
    How many of those previous elections had as many "credible" nominees standing?

    'This time it's different'.

    Yes, well, up to a point. The SNP look set to lay into, perhaps almost wipe out, Labour in Scotland, it is true.

    But, as regards England and Wales, I'm puzzled by the common assumption that this election will see an unprecedented opportunity for parties other than the big two. People look at UKIP, and think: 'Wow!' . But the kinds of figures UKIP are polling are not at all unusual: consider LibDems 2010, or SDP 1983.

    Now, every election is different, but it's not obvious that this one is more different than any other. On one level, it's a replacement of the LibDems by UKIP.
  • Hengists_GiftHengists_Gift Posts: 628
    edited February 2015
    TGOHF said:

    MP_SE said:

    The UKIP percentage suprisingly holding up as the GE fast approaches. I wonder when it will start to get squeezed. The BBC have a hatchet job lined up for the weekend so along with Channel 4 could be the start of a dirty campaign. Doubt it will do them much harm though as to date it hasn't.

    Their polling has been steadily down since October.
    Indeed on monthly averages it has dropped a whole 2 points from its highest point when it had just won its second by election and secured its second MP.

    In terms of average monthly Westminster vote share polling October was UKIP's highest vote share ever. That its dropped off since is unsurprising given it has not had the same levels of media exposure. Of course it gets that when the election campaign begins in earnest. I doubt you will find too many in UKIP HQ who are too worried about this drop off in support.

    After all despite the drop off, In January this year UKIPs average monthly poll share was still 2 points higher than it was January 2014. The year on year polling average is still upward.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737

    Have we noticed this interesting article by Tony Travers on what local election results indicate for the GE?

    In the past, parties which were on the way to winning a parliamentary majority would generally win 40 per cent or more of the NEVS in years immediately prior to the general election. On no occasion since 1979 has a party defeated the government without a solid NEVS performance averaging about 40 per cent in the four years prior to the election
    ....
    In the four years since 2010, Labour has had an average NEVS of 34 per cent, with the 2013 and 2014 figures being 29 and 31 per cent respectively. The figure below shows the national equivalent vote share lead of opposition parties from 1983 to the present. Elections that resulted in a change of government are coloured red, and elections where the opposition failed to win are coloured black. It is hard to see Labour’s NEVS performance between 2011 and 2014 (coloured gray) as a convincing basis for an election victory. No Opposition since 1979 has managed to win a general election with such a low average NEVS lead in the four years immediately before the election. Moreover, governing parties tend to poll higher in the following general election than they did in the previous years’ local election vote share average.


    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/generalelection/local-elections-party-prospects/

    Someone posted a near-identical guest article here last May...
  • RodCrosby said:

    Have we noticed this interesting article by Tony Travers on what local election results indicate for the GE?

    In the past, parties which were on the way to winning a parliamentary majority would generally win 40 per cent or more of the NEVS in years immediately prior to the general election. On no occasion since 1979 has a party defeated the government without a solid NEVS performance averaging about 40 per cent in the four years prior to the election
    ....
    In the four years since 2010, Labour has had an average NEVS of 34 per cent, with the 2013 and 2014 figures being 29 and 31 per cent respectively. The figure below shows the national equivalent vote share lead of opposition parties from 1983 to the present. Elections that resulted in a change of government are coloured red, and elections where the opposition failed to win are coloured black. It is hard to see Labour’s NEVS performance between 2011 and 2014 (coloured gray) as a convincing basis for an election victory. No Opposition since 1979 has managed to win a general election with such a low average NEVS lead in the four years immediately before the election. Moreover, governing parties tend to poll higher in the following general election than they did in the previous years’ local election vote share average.


    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/generalelection/local-elections-party-prospects/

    Someone posted a near-identical guest article here last May...
    Indeed!
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    TGOHF said:

    MP_SE said:

    The UKIP percentage suprisingly holding up as the GE fast approaches. I wonder when it will start to get squeezed. The BBC have a hatchet job lined up for the weekend so along with Channel 4 could be the start of a dirty campaign. Doubt it will do them much harm though as to date it hasn't.

    Their polling has been steadily down since October.
    Indeed on monthly averages it has dropped a whole 2 points from its highest point when it had just won its second by election and secured its second MP.

    In terms of average monthly Westminster vote share polling October was UKIP's highest vote share ever. That its dropped off since is unsurprising given it has not had the same levels of media exposure. Of course it gets that when the election campaign begins in earnest. I doubt you will find too many in UKIP HQ who are too worried about this drop off in support.

    After all despite the drop off, In January this year UKIPs average monthly poll share was still 2 points higher than it was January 2014. The year on year polling average is still upward.
    The UKIP Spring Conference starts in Margate on 27th Feb, that I believe will be the true start of a UKIP surge all the way to to GE day.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    If Ed becomes PM or UKIP take 10 or so seats, no man will be able to claim such credit as Dan.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    EPG said:

    Have we noticed this interesting article by Tony Travers on what local election results indicate for the GE?

    In the past, parties which were on the way to winning a parliamentary majority would generally win 40 per cent or more of the NEVS in years immediately prior to the general election. On no occasion since 1979 has a party defeated the government without a solid NEVS performance averaging about 40 per cent in the four years prior to the election
    ....

    ...

    There have only been two defeats of a government since 1979, so to election-chartists, anything which fits these two data points can count as a "law".
    You are making exactly the same statistical error as the numpties who exploded the space shuttle in 1986.

    There have also been five elections where the incumbents were not defeated...
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    LAB - 34% (+2) CON - 33% (+1) UKIP - 15% (-1) GRN - 7% (-1) LDEM - 6% (-)

    Drift, drift...

    At what point do we put the paddles back in the cart and accept that the LibDems just ain't coming back.

  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    Charles said:

    LAB - 34% (+2) CON - 33% (+1) UKIP - 15% (-1) GRN - 7% (-1) LDEM - 6% (-)

    Drift, drift...

    At what point do we put the paddles back in the cart and accept that the LibDems just ain't coming back.

    May 8th?
  • MikeK said:

    TGOHF said:

    MP_SE said:

    The UKIP percentage suprisingly holding up as the GE fast approaches. I wonder when it will start to get squeezed. The BBC have a hatchet job lined up for the weekend so along with Channel 4 could be the start of a dirty campaign. Doubt it will do them much harm though as to date it hasn't.

    Their polling has been steadily down since October.
    Indeed on monthly averages it has dropped a whole 2 points from its highest point when it had just won its second by election and secured its second MP.

    In terms of average monthly Westminster vote share polling October was UKIP's highest vote share ever. That its dropped off since is unsurprising given it has not had the same levels of media exposure. Of course it gets that when the election campaign begins in earnest. I doubt you will find too many in UKIP HQ who are too worried about this drop off in support.

    After all despite the drop off, In January this year UKIPs average monthly poll share was still 2 points higher than it was January 2014. The year on year polling average is still upward.
    The UKIP Spring Conference starts in Margate on 27th Feb, that I believe will be the true start of a UKIP surge all the way to to GE day.

    Indeed unless something untoward occurs I'm expecting for UKIPs vote share to strengthen once they get into the campaign proper. And 'Events dear Boys Events'; we could also be in the throes of a Eurozone crisis pretty much up to the election. Won't that be fun?
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Charles
    When the extremely Rubinesque chanteuse warbles?
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Lets face it he could have printed the telephone directory ...
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Cyclefree said:

    Re Oborne's quitting the telegraph, he refers to a story I mentioned that HSBC were closing Muslim accounts for spurious reasons because they were outside their risk appetite.

    Charles, CycleFree and Robert assured it was because it was because the potential regulatory fines is why HSBC did it. I said it seemed odd, as other banks were quite happy to provide banking to similar people.

    Peter Oborne's missive confirms to me that something very odd is going on at HSBC.

    (PS this isn't a dig at Charles, CycleFree and Robert, it is more, I got involved it, and I know something odd is going on)

    I really wouldn't rely on what Oborne is saying on this. I can't comment on whether the paper is bowing to its advertisers. But on the issue of closure of accounts HSBC has been doing this for a number of groups, including bookmakers. He is assuming that because Muslims are involved the reason must be sinister. This isn't the case. Banks will close accounts for all sorts of reasons and usually never say why.

    I can well believe that HSBC is going through a torrid time though.
    HSBC has been going through a world of pain. They came within an inch of ****** ***** ******* ******* in the US. They've become - quite understandably - hugely risk averse on the regulatory front. If they don't have the paperwork, or it isn't worth the effort of getting they won't take the risk. If the screw up again and what nearly happened happens then it's game over.

    (Self moderated to preserve OGH's peace of mind)
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    RodCrosby said:

    EPG said:

    Have we noticed this interesting article by Tony Travers on what local election results indicate for the GE?

    In the past, parties which were on the way to winning a parliamentary majority would generally win 40 per cent or more of the NEVS in years immediately prior to the general election. On no occasion since 1979 has a party defeated the government without a solid NEVS performance averaging about 40 per cent in the four years prior to the election
    ....

    ...

    There have only been two defeats of a government since 1979, so to election-chartists, anything which fits these two data points can count as a "law".
    You are making exactly the same statistical error as the numpties who exploded the space shuttle in 1986.

    There have also been five elections where the incumbents were not defeated...
    Silly! I am highlighting the error of omitting data points to make misleading "laws". As the author wrote, there is no threshold; some parties lost with high local votes. And even if you reject that, it's still silly to infer anything from seven data points - though this does threaten the dogma of "swing-back"!
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Cyclefree said:

    Re Oborne's quitting the telegraph, he refers to a story I mentioned that HSBC were closing Muslim accounts for spurious reasons because they were outside their risk appetite.

    Charles, CycleFree and Robert assured it was because it was because the potential regulatory fines is why HSBC did it. I said it seemed odd, as other banks were quite happy to provide banking to similar people.

    Peter Oborne's missive confirms to me that something very odd is going on at HSBC.

    (PS this isn't a dig at Charles, CycleFree and Robert, it is more, I got involved it, and I know something odd is going on)

    I really wouldn't rely on what Oborne is saying on this. I can't comment on whether the paper is bowing to its advertisers. But on the issue of closure of accounts HSBC has been doing this for a number of groups, including bookmakers. He is assuming that because Muslims are involved the reason must be sinister. This isn't the case. Banks will close accounts for all sorts of reasons and usually never say why.

    I can well believe that HSBC is going through a torrid time though.
    When you have a journalist willing to think conspiracy first and facts ... well not at all, then you have Oborne.
    And as for some of his other assertions ... we are talking politics here. Politics is full of stories that are not published.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,123
    edited February 2015

    MikeK said:

    TGOHF said:

    MP_SE said:

    The UKIP percentage suprisingly holding up as the GE fast approaches. I wonder when it will start to get squeezed. The BBC have a hatchet job lined up for the weekend so along with Channel 4 could be the start of a dirty campaign. Doubt it will do them much harm though as to date it hasn't.

    Their polling has been steadily down since October.
    Indeed on monthly averages it has dropped a whole 2 points from its highest point when it had just won its second by election and secured its second MP.

    In terms of average monthly Westminster vote share polling October was UKIP's highest vote share ever. That its dropped off since is unsurprising given it has not had the same levels of media exposure. Of course it gets that when the election campaign begins in earnest. I doubt you will find too many in UKIP HQ who are too worried about this drop off in support.

    After all despite the drop off, In January this year UKIPs average monthly poll share was still 2 points higher than it was January 2014. The year on year polling average is still upward.
    The UKIP Spring Conference starts in Margate on 27th Feb, that I believe will be the true start of a UKIP surge all the way to to GE day.

    Indeed unless something untoward occurs I'm expecting for UKIPs vote share to strengthen once they get into the campaign proper. And 'Events dear Boys Events'; we could also be in the throes of a Eurozone crisis pretty much up to the election. Won't that be fun?
    McMillan never actually said that!
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,568
    Jonathan said:

    LDs on Six percent.
    6!
    Not 16% or even 26% just five years ago.
    Six!

    It's astonishing.
    They seem paralysed and we all take it for granted.

    I'm still awaiting the selection of my LibDem opponent. How many seats do each of the parties have candidates for now, does anyone know?
    kle4 said:

    LAB - 34% (+2) CON - 33% (+1) UKIP - 15% (-1) GRN - 7% (-1) LDEM - 6% (-)

    Drift, drift...

    Question - if a former MP gets returned after an absence of one parliament, for the same seat, do they get the same office space as the person they just beat. or their old office (if the two are not already one and the same)?
    I don't know, hasn't happened to me yet! But MPs are generally organised in party corridors (presumably to avoid worries about eavesdropping) so it wouldn't be the office of the person they beat. My guess is that they start all over again like any new MP in any office that happens to be going. But who knows - I've not really given the post-May 7 period much thought, feeling it's too presumptuous and somehow tempting fate.

  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Flightpath
    "Politics is full of stories that are not published."

    Those are the ones that can contain the Journalist of the Year award.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,580
    edited February 2015

    Jonathan said:

    LDs on Six percent.
    6!
    Not 16% or even 26% just five years ago.
    Six!

    It's astonishing.
    They seem paralysed and we all take it for granted.

    I'm still awaiting the selection of my LibDem opponent. How many seats do each of the parties have candidates for now, does anyone know?
    kle4 said:

    LAB - 34% (+2) CON - 33% (+1) UKIP - 15% (-1) GRN - 7% (-1) LDEM - 6% (-)

    Drift, drift...

    Question - if a former MP gets returned after an absence of one parliament, for the same seat, do they get the same office space as the person they just beat. or their old office (if the two are not already one and the same)?
    I don't know, hasn't happened to me yet! But MPs are generally organised in party corridors (presumably to avoid worries about eavesdropping) so it wouldn't be the office of the person they beat. My guess is that they start all over again like any new MP in any office that happens to be going. But who knows - I've not really given the post-May 7 period much thought, feeling it's too presumptuous and somehow tempting fate.

    Probably a sensible approach, but good luck all the same and cheers for the info. Fascinating place, Westminster.

    Good night all.

  • TGOHF said:

    MP_SE said:

    The UKIP percentage suprisingly holding up as the GE fast approaches. I wonder when it will start to get squeezed. The BBC have a hatchet job lined up for the weekend so along with Channel 4 could be the start of a dirty campaign. Doubt it will do them much harm though as to date it hasn't.

    Their polling has been steadily down since October.
    The latest ELBOW (w/e 15th Feb) has UKIP on 14.2%, their lowest score since w/e 5th October.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411

    Jonathan said:

    LDs on Six percent.
    6!
    Not 16% or even 26% just five years ago.
    Six!

    It's astonishing.
    They seem paralysed and we all take it for granted.

    I'm still awaiting the selection of my LibDem opponent. How many seats do each of the parties have candidates for now, does anyone know?
    kle4 said:

    LAB - 34% (+2) CON - 33% (+1) UKIP - 15% (-1) GRN - 7% (-1) LDEM - 6% (-)

    Drift, drift...

    Question - if a former MP gets returned after an absence of one parliament, for the same seat, do they get the same office space as the person they just beat. or their old office (if the two are not already one and the same)?
    I don't know, hasn't happened to me yet! But MPs are generally organised in party corridors (presumably to avoid worries about eavesdropping) so it wouldn't be the office of the person they beat. My guess is that they start all over again like any new MP in any office that happens to be going. But who knows - I've not really given the post-May 7 period much thought, feeling it's too presumptuous and somehow tempting fate.

    Nobody is even bothering to write hatchet job articles on the Lib Dems any more. They're becoming completely invisible outside their fortresses.
  • Completely off topic I am very sad to see what is going on at Brentford FC.

    The owner is obviously a very smart guy having set up smartodds, and he is a lifelong Brentford supporter, but sacking Mark Warburton is madness.

    My grandson has been training with their youth set up and it is very impressive, I would much rather he went there than any other club in London.

    A progressive club for sure with a new stadium in the offing but cannot help but feel this is a mistake.

    Meantime Mark Warburton is from the Brendan Rodgers/Sean Dyche school of managers and will do a great job somewhere, probably Fulham or QPR.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    edited February 2015
    On the subject of investigative journalists, or indeed journalists being investigated.
    This case is starting to look extremely odd.

    http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/crime-court/hampstead_journalist_who_exposed_wrongdoing_to_stand_trial_over_alleged_2_5million_tax_scam_1_3342073
    An investigative journalist, who invents a tax dodge I can handle, but his partners in crime were mainly bankers and investors?
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Tim_B said:

    MTimT said:

    Greece. This does not bode well for a deal: "Greece's government has called for a vote to scrap its austerity programme on Friday, the same day that the eurozone has declared a deadline for it to seek an extension to its bailout." (from the Beeb)

    How did Greece get into the eurozone in the first place? It's been a basket case for years. Was it a case of ignore the truth, think pure thoughts and onward to ever closer union?
    Lies willingly told and willingly believed for political expedience.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    If anything, your argument shows just how poor the current position of the Labour Opposition is in this article.
    Jonathan said:

    Have we noticed this interesting article by Tony Travers on what local election results indicate for the GE?

    In the past, parties which were on the way to winning a parliamentary majority would generally win 40 per cent or more of the NEVS in years immediately prior to the general election. On no occasion since 1979 has a party defeated the government without a solid NEVS performance averaging about 40 per cent in the four years prior to the election
    ....
    In the four years since 2010, Labour has had an average NEVS of 34 per cent, with the 2013 and 2014 figures being 29 and 31 per cent respectively. The figure below shows the national equivalent vote share lead of opposition parties from 1983 to the present. Elections that resulted in a change of government are coloured red, and elections where the opposition failed to win are coloured black. It is hard to see Labour’s NEVS performance between 2011 and 2014 (coloured gray) as a convincing basis for an election victory. No Opposition since 1979 has managed to win a general election with such a low average NEVS lead in the four years immediately before the election. Moreover, governing parties tend to poll higher in the following general election than they did in the previous years’ local election vote share average.


    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/generalelection/local-elections-party-prospects/

    Not sure previous elections are as much use this time. None represent a govt starting out defending a weak minority position, needing to actually win seats, and none had such a collapse in the third party.

  • Smarmeron said:

    On the subject of investigative journalists, or indeed journalists being investigated.
    This case is starting to look extremely odd.

    http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/crime-court/hampstead_journalist_who_exposed_wrongdoing_to_stand_trial_over_alleged_2_5million_tax_scam_1_3342073
    An investigative journalist, who invents a tax dodge I can handle, but his partners in crime were mainly bankers and investors?

    Indeed and a journalist who directs parody mockumentary's for Channel 4. Fancy a publicly owned company consorting with alleged criminals.........I believe his next docudrama may be the story of a journalist's first 100 days in prison!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    @Fitalass Where is your seat out of interest ?
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Hengists_Gift
    Quite possibly, and odds on, but you just know he will plead not guilty, and that it was an elaborate "sting"?
  • Smarmeron said:

    @Hengists_Gift
    Quite possibly, and odds on, but you just know he will plead not guilty, and that it was an elaborate "sting"?

    A sting worth £2.5 million yeah right
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Hengists_Gift
    It could have started that way, but he found he preferred the money..or he could have been greedy from the start.
    It is only the plea he will be making I was thinking about.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    If Labour doesn't win a majority, it is because most national opinon polls show them with a 0 to 2 per cent lead, not because the local election results in 1995 and 2008 caused something to go wrong for them.
  • Completely off topic I am very sad to see what is going on at Brentford FC.

    The owner is obviously a very smart guy having set up smartodds, and he is a lifelong Brentford supporter, but sacking Mark Warburton is madness.

    My grandson has been training with their youth set up and it is very impressive, I would much rather he went there than any other club in London.

    A progressive club for sure with a new stadium in the offing but cannot help but feel this is a mistake.

    Meantime Mark Warburton is from the Brendan Rodgers/Sean Dyche school of managers and will do a great job somewhere, probably Fulham or QPR.

    Yes, it's a strange one - I would imagine Warburton's departure results from irreconcilable differences between two very smart and forceful personalities - it happens sometimes. I'm confident both are assured of future success at Brentford in the case of one and wherever the Managerial Merry-go-Round hand of fate decrees Warburton should move to. Incidentally, I did wonder when I first heard about their falling out, whether Warburton had been approached about taking a bigger job (in which he might have expressed a positive interest) and somehow or other the Brentford owner got to hear about it and reacted accordingly.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    edited February 2015
    Hi @Pulpster, my seat is West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine.
    Pulpstar said:

    @Fitalass Where is your seat out of interest ?

This discussion has been closed.